It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That character in the OT can only be a 'false God' if a person makes Him one.
. . . I believe he "god" of the OT is a false God
LOL. You are sounding like Paul, who also had no apparent interest in Jesus' earthly life - or at least its importance. It is unimaginable that the many people who followed Jesus did not feel his love, example, and personal impact of his teaching in their lives. He lived as love and this would have been felt as the basis for living his core commandments that prepared their body-minds for his Blessing.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Your post on the other thread seems to be a longer version of what you said here.
I can't hardly imagine you being more wrong.
I would say that the exact opposite is more likely to be true, than your take.
I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion so it is rather worthless.
Spiritual masterbation?
This is what Jesus wanted the disciples to live and continue, but Paul usurped all of this by only promoting and objectifying the icon of Jesus up in heaven, and that the belief in this icon would lead to one's eventual salvation. Jesus was a living master who taught people how to love the Divine directly through the spiritual relationship with him and this is absolutely essential for Christians to reclaim.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
"Was" in your paragraph is rather significant.
Meditate on that.
My icon? I am talking about a non-separative relationship with the Divine - not the objectifying of the Divine as some distant separate iconic Other to only be believed in and at a future time be saved by.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
How is your 'icon' better than the Risen Christ.
I'm having a problem with my 'participating ' with you.
Not sure what the problem with my recent participation here is for you, jmdewey.
I can only assume from the presumptions you are making here that you do not read my posts unless they are specifically addressed to you. No problem there, they do tend to be a bit long. However, it would be wise of you to actually read what I post before jumping to conclusions and writing me off because you think I am a Muslim or belonging to some other religion you do not agree with. Reading my posts and THEN writing me off is one thing, but not reading them sufficiently and deciding I am a Muslim, and writing me off, is quite another.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
I'm having a problem with my 'participating ' with you.
I have to think that you are probably a Muslim and that would explain your attitude, that your religion tells you Jesus was a real person.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Unless you believe that Jesus is god, then merely acknowledging him as a historical person does you no good.
And I think your emphasis on 'devotion' would be explained too, by your religious affiliation, since they are big on that, praying five times a day and that sort of thing, believing that being religious means ritual and meditation.
I don't believe in that and so my earlier comment that you may be taking offense at. I do not apologize and feel now more its appropriateness.
Yes, that is exactly the Avataric tradition spoken of by other spiritual realizers.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus was god, preincarnate, living in heaven with God the Father, who then came to earth as a man to save us, and in the process, suffering and dying so that we can have what he has, a resurrected body, and can live, at least hypothetically, 'forever' with God, too.
Actually, I am not wanting to look at Jesus as an object at all. That is what Paul's writings have tended to do - to de-personify and objectify Jesus into a distant sacred "Other" only to be believed in.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Having conversations with such a person, over theology, is just an exercise in futility because they are not interested in being a Christian, just looking at the shiny object hanging by a thread, so pretty, spinning in the wind, and reflecting the sunlight.
"Jesus" is not a teaching that people can pick up and practice and learn to recognize their own god-ness or whatever.
. . . Jesus taught his Oneness with the Divine directly and personally to many people, calling everyone to that presently through his person, example, commandments, and blessing.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
"Jesus" is not a teaching that people can pick up and practice and learn to recognize their own god-ness or whatever.
That to me is objectifying Jesus.
Jesus was a person who lived and died as one of us but is now in heaven acting as intermediary between us and God, to God, as a representative of humanity, and to us, as a representative for God.
Jesus taught his oneness explanation, not to the "many", but to the few, his closest disciples, and then he was describing a oneness with God through him, with those who believe in Jesus being in Christ, and Jesus being in the Father.
That principal is repeated by Paul.
John 17:20-26
New International Version (NIV)
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
We have a relationship with the 'now' Jesus, who is the living risen Christ in heaven.
The 'gospel' Jesus is a cardboard cutout story-board, who is not a living person.
The Divine could just as readily be called the Divine Person as far as I am concerned. I use the word God as well, but some people relate better to the word Divine than God. What other terminology should I clarify?
Originally posted by jmdewey60
You should include like a little glossary to define your terminology.
I am guessing that "the divine" is your way of avoiding saying "God".
Where God is not a person but some kind of spiritual substance.
LOL. As an alternative to being stuck with this discussion, you could always just simply take a break, be still, and surrender to the Divine Person with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
It is a bit dreary on the boards so I'm kind of stuck with this.
. . . this discussion is an alternative to what seems to me like juvenile bickering on some other threads. That's what I meant by "dreary".
As an alternative to being stuck with this discussion
There was this thing that Jesus was trying to get at in John 11 about life and resurrection, that you can be given a type of life that is independent of the physical life of the body.
. . . not . . . waiting until death for . . . oneness . . . to be . . .
I don't know about all of that. The important thing is a unity between fellow humans that is accomplished through the divine. I don't think God needs us to be "united" with Him other than in principle, as in us living in harmony with divine principles of love. It would be ridiculous I think to imagine a God who need our love, other than loving what He stands for, which is goodness.
It is talking about this Divine Unity for everyone in this world too
That is true sometimes.
. . . you do not read my posts unless they are specifically addressed to you.
That's not the problem. I'm reading all day long, from early in the morning to late at night.
they do tend to be a bit long.
A lot of times all I can think about is what is right in from of my face.
read what I post before jumping to conclusions and writing me off
Originally posted by jmdewey60
There was this thing that Jesus was trying to get at in John 11 about life and resurrection, that you can be given a type of life that is independent of the physical life of the body.
John 11
New International Version (NIV)
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
Yes, once one recognizes the Divine, the unity that we all arise in is obvious.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
The important thing is a unity between fellow humans that is accomplished through the divine.
God does not need to be united with us because from the Divine Person's "standpoint" , He already is. God is not separate from us - but we in our mortal meanderings believe and even seem to be apparently separate from God.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
I don't think God needs us to be "united" with Him other than in principle, as in us living in harmony with divine principles of love. It would be ridiculous I think to imagine a God who need our love, other than loving what He stands for, which is goodness.
I would have to engage in semantics in order to find disagreement with your post.
I think what Jesus is saying here is that one must die to identifying with the body-mind and all of its fleshly desires, selfish principles, etc. This "death" is what living his core commandments is about.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by micmerci
If all hasn't been accomplished then how are Christians exempt from the Law? He didn't say nothing but Christians would pass from the Law did he?
By your logic, Jews are still saved by keeping the Law. What was that about Jesus being the only way again?edit on 31-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by 1PLA1
So what was the point of the law if it never saved? If the Law never saved, what happened to all the Jews in the BC's? God let millions of Jews go to hell the thousand or so years before Jesus came?